Here we go for my first thread on Twitter, where I'd like to discuss the illusion of prudence and some comments on arbitrariness. One of the more toxic components of this year has been the axiomatic acceptance that prudence/caution is intrinsically good. This is a fallacy. (1/7)

Long after many regions have passed their epidemic peaks (NY), we have been forced to accept that cautiously reopening is the sensible, obvious approach. This doesn't actually make sense. If a downpour started while driving, it would make sense to slow down. But if the rain (2/7)

stopped completely, it isn't necessarily prudent to go from 50 MPH to 55, wait a few minutes, then 60, wait a few more minutes, then 65, and on and on all the way back to 75. When the threat is gone, arbitrarily staggering your resumption of normalcy simply makes no sense. (3/7)

This illusion is further compounded inside an economy and society, where every day and week matter to businesses presently collecting no revenue, kids with suicidal thoughts not seeing their friends, or cancer patients silently progressing to more advanced stages. (4/7)

In this light - prudence is not simply unwise, but life-threatening (both to people and businesses). Finally, a word on arbitrary numbers. The easiest way to know the reopening plans aren't based on science or math is that the numbers are too neat and round. (5/7)

States enact capacity restrictions of 25% or 50%, but these are simply nice, round numbers we often work with. If this was scientific we'd expect to see 32.7% or 68.23%, and 4 or 11 days in between phases not 2 weeks or 1 month. These arbitrary numbers don't mean anything. (6/7)

All it means is "well we're still scared, being fully open sounds too much, so how about we be really prudent and start with a nice, even 25% for two weeks." This has no place in public policy when lives and livelihoods are on the line. (7/7)